kdubdub Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 I have a friend who votes Republican strictly because of abortion. Is that the marker for your political party? Personaly, I feel like Republicans throw it out more then Dems but they have had the power to do something about it with legislation, with control of the house/senate/pres. for the last 5 years, but nothing has really changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 2 2005, 10:15 PM']I have a friend who votes Republican strictly because of abortion. Is that the marker for your political party? Personaly, I feel like Republicans throw it out more then Dems but they have had the power to do something about it with legislation, with control of the house/senate/pres. for the last 5 years, but nothing has really changed. [right][post="110058"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] It typically is a Republican issue, but it doesn't have to be. As far as the legislation goes thats a lot tougher than said, you have the courts who ruled in favor of roe vs wade. I'm not so much in favor of legally restricting it, but I don't want it federally funded either. I just wish we lived in a society where people understood the physical and emotial parts of having one and that it wasn't a decision that some people make so cavalierly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubdub Posted July 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jul 2 2005, 09:22 PM']It typically is a Republican issue, but it doesn't have to be. As far as the legislation goes thats a lot tougher than said, you have the courts who ruled in favor of roe vs wade. I'm not so much in favor of legally restricting it, but I don't want it federally funded either. I just wish we lived in a society where people understood the physical and emotial parts of having one and that it wasn't a decision that some people make so cavalierly. [right][post="110062"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I know the only way to overturn it is through the Supreme Court but they could limit funds given to planned parenthood centers which I say is a very good middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 It is a big deal. I find it horrible, however, that there is national law considering abortion. I think it should be decided state by state. Then, each state can grab some doctors and scientists together and decide at what point the baby is indeed alive and make that the cut-off point for abortion. I repeat, there should be nothing on the national level that deals with abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [i][b]You will be hearing a lot about in the coming weeks I can assure you.... When Bush says that he wants a strrict constructionist judge.... he means a Pro Life one.... Retiring Justice O'connor voted Conservativley and with Scalia 80 % of the time. But the Rush limbaughs of the world dispised her when she wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade. To Christian conservatives the Abortion issue is the rallying cry and watch them fucking revolt if Bush does not appease the focus on the family crowd and put a right wind judge in for nomination. That is why the Right wing already doesn't want Alberto Gonzalez... because he is pro choice in some circumstances.............. I refer to it is as selective Biblical obedience. Where certain people focus in on the Quote "I knew you before you were in the womb" and ignore the "thou shall not kill", "love thy neighbor", the fact that jesus said only the sinless should cast the first stone etc. To me the stoires are all bullshit, but if you are going to demand judges who follow them at least take judges who follow the other ones as well, commanding you to feed the poor, care for the sick etc. [img]http://www.lancheros.com/photoblog/Anti-Abortion-Rally.jpg[/img] Take this guy for example..... ok he is holding a sign of the most grotesque late term abortion he can find, and making the presumption that all aborted fetuses look like this one, and ignoring that most abortions that are late enough to have a fully formed head like this are most likely illegal anyway. What I find ironic is the people that are usually anti-abortion are usually pro -death penalty, and pro military in the sense that they believe we should be proactivley bombing countries. There is nothing better than seeing a conservative guy yell about abortion and then say we should make Iraq a parking lot ......... I have a stance on abortion that is unpopular to both sides. I don't support abortion, I support fetus extraction. If when extracted the fetus is physiologically able to independently exist symbiotically without the use of the mothers bodily functions then it has developed into an independent human being and of course you can not suck it's brains out or kill it like late term infanticide does. However if it is a goop of goo that is ploped out in the toilet it was not a child. The Pro choices hate this idea because they want no limits, and the conservatives hate this because they want no exceptions..... [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [color="blue"][i][b]Also keep in mind the Jeff Dobson Bush crowd already has 18 million dollars raised to run ads and discredit any nominee that Bush sends to the hill that isn't strictly pro-life. The irony I believe is that Bush will get it more from the right than the left, because I think he wants to nominate long time friend Alberto Gonzalez, but the right wing hates him. [/b][/i][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 But do you really think that this should be decided on a national level. I see no way how the federal government should be involved in this matter. I think the states should decide this. But I'm a big advocate for less federal involvement in anything. Give the power back to the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote]But do you really think that this should be decided on a national level. I see no way how the federal government should be involved in this matter.[/quote] [i][b]Steggy, do you actually think this would make a difference on the number of abortions, people would just travel to the nearby state and get it done.... except for the bible belt of the south where it would probably be banned throughout.... leaving only the wealthier women the ability to fly and get the abortion done in a Northern state, while the poor welfare mother who can't afford another kid will be forced to have it cause she won't be able to travel to get one. Just like if Abortion was illegal nationwide, women with money would just fly to Canada or Mexico., it is the poorer women who wouldn't have that opportunity. [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 2 2005, 10:24 PM']I know the only way to overturn it is through the Supreme Court but they could limit funds given to planned parenthood centers which I say is a very good middle ground. [right][post="110063"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Does planned parenthood get federal dollars? Im unaware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 I know you think its all bullshit, but Im a bit confused here. [quote]I refer to it is as selective Biblical obedience. Where certain people focus in on the Quote "I knew you before you were in the womb" and ignore the "thou shall not kill", "love thy neighbor",[/quote] How are these three quotes contradictry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 Because, BJ, it all goes back to the will of the people. In my opinion, a nation this large can never achieve true democracy. Hell, we can never even get close to it. But on a much smaller scale, the will of the people is there. When I think of the rights of states, I think of a group of people who more than likely have the same mindset. You know, New Yorkers are all mean, fast and fashionable. Let them have things their way. Kentuckians are all dumb, slow and rednecks. Let them have things their way. Californians are all gay, mid-speed (?), and falling through earthqake cracks. Let them have things their way. In this sense, the guy in Missouri, who's state does not allow abortions past 2 months or something does not have to feel bad about late term abortions in Connecticut. Well, I won't go in depth into my thinking, but there's the front end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 Speaking from a constitutional sense, it should be a state issue. [quote name='US Constitution @1791']Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/quote] So, this should be left to the voters in each state. From a moral standpoint, it is murder. Killing an unborn child, in brutal ways. Trust me BJ, the image you posted of the guy holding the pic is typical of what an abortion looks like. And he could have found worse. One method of abortion involves injecting a highly concentrated saline solution into the placenta, which acts like acid and poison to the baby. Another method involves slicing the baby and vacuuming it out of the womb piece by piece. For anyone who has the guts, I dare you to click the link below, and watch the videos. I warn you it is graphic. It is a sonogram taken during an abortion at 11 weeks. [url="http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm"]http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 And that's my other point. I am a strict consitutionalist. I like the ideas of Libertarians and the Constitution parties. Give powers back to the states. Take the federal goverment out of our lives. Gotta love that Amendment there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 Reposting portion edited from an earlier post in case anyone missed it. For anyone who has the guts, I dare you to click the link below, and watch the videos. I warn you it is graphic. It is a sonogram taken during an abortion at 11 weeks. [url="http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm"]http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote]I refer to it is as selective Biblical obedience. Where certain people focus in on the Quote "I knew you before you were in the womb" and ignore the "thou shall not kill", "love thy neighbor", How are these three quotes contradictry?[/quote] [i][b]Electric chair, miltary bombing of any kind, turning the other cheek on the mass murderer would not be executing him.... now since I am for the death penalty I am not making this argument I am just pointing out the flaw in it. Technically I think that Jesus if real and alive would say that we should love Osama Bin Laden not hunt him down..... but then again he got nailed up so non-violence might not always pay off [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubdub Posted July 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 I was really trying to see if people would still follow the same party if the issue was nonexistent. I.e...I would still be a democrat (even though I'm pro-life) if abortion was an issue thats nonexistent. Really, I have this idea that the Republican party benefits from social ideas and that half of "conservatives" really aren't but just vote that way because of abortion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 2 2005, 11:40 PM'][i][b]Electric chair, miltary bombing of any kind, turning the other cheek on the mass murderer would not be executing him.... now since I am for the death penalty I am not making this argument I am just pointing out the flaw in it. Technically I think that Jesus if real and alive would say that we should love Osama Bin Laden not hunt him down..... but then again he got nailed up so non-violence might not always pay off [/b][/i] [right][post="110096"][/post][/right][/quote] I'm not for the death penalty myself, but I see what your saying. I also think the idea of "Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and God what is Gods applys in terms of letting the punishment fit the crime." I also refer you to Ron White on what he thinks about killing Osama. [quote]I was having a arguement about Bin Laden with someone the other day, and the arguement came up because a country said that if they caught him they wouldnt extradite him to a state in the United States that had the death penalty. And Im like "I dont care." and my buddies all bent out of shape about it.."Ill blow the towel off his head"...because thats who I hang out with. It bent him out of shape that I wasnt upset about it, he goes "How come your upset I know your pro death penalty, how come that dont make you mad?" Ill tell you why it doesnt make me mad because spiritually Osama Bin Laden is prepared to die for Islam, but I guarntee you spiritually Osama Bin Laden is ill prepared to lick jelly out of Thunderdick's butt crack.... "I hate grape jelly"... "Shut up and lick my butt"....and you got to do a good job too, because you in this till thunderdick cums it aint a nah nah there I did it. No you got to try you got to tickel the inside of thunderdick's thigh you got to fondel thunderdick's nutsack a little bit cause if you dont make him cum pretty quick your gonna run out of jelly[/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 2 2005, 11:44 PM']I was really trying to see if people would still follow the same party if the issue was nonexistent. I.e...I would still be a democrat (even though I'm pro-life) if abortion was an issue thats nonexistent. Really, I have this idea that the Republican party benefits from social ideas and that half of "conservatives" really aren't but just vote that way because of abortion [right][post="110097"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] It's more than just abortion its several prolife issues, fetus based stem cell research ect... Also the idea that the Republican party generally (now this isnt true in all cases) is more pro christian, I think the Dems have a chance to change that as well as expand it into other faiths. If they do I would def consider voting for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 2 2005, 11:44 PM']I was really trying to see if people would still follow the same party if the issue was nonexistent. I.e...I would still be a democrat (even though I'm pro-life) if abortion was an issue thats nonexistent. Really, I have this idea that the Republican party benefits from social ideas and that half of "conservatives" really aren't but just vote that way because of abortion [right][post="110097"][/post][/right][/quote] I would still be a Republican. I favor a strong military, lower taxes and less regulation. Now, if only the Republicans would legislate like Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 2 2005, 08:36 PM']What I find ironic is the people that are usually anti-abortion are usually pro -death penalty, and pro military in the sense that they believe we should be proactivley bombing countries. .........[right][post="110071"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] A baby does nothing but strive to have a life. A person on Death row has taken a life in cold blood. If you don`t see the difference between a baby that has done nothing but do everything it can to HAVE a life... and a person that has no respect for life (a murderer on death row) then you aren`t as "enlightened" as you claim to be. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img] And as far as the pro military ...well my motto is "Don`t start none... won`t be none." In Afghanistan they COULD have avoided war... They CHOSE not to avoid it. In Iraq ...Saddam COULD have avoided war... he CHOSE not to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubdub Posted July 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='oldschooler' date='Jul 3 2005, 07:54 AM']They CHOSE not to avoid it. In Iraq ...Saddam COULD have avoided war... he CHOSE not to... [right][post="110171"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Iraq wanted nothing to do with a war. They were not a threat and it was our misguided fear that brought us to attack them. We went off of intelligence from misleaders like Chalaby(sp?) and ignored all the intelligence that didn't support going to war. Biggest waist of time/resources/life I have ever seen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 3 2005, 09:47 AM']Iraq wanted nothing to do with a war. They were not a threat and it was our misguided fear that brought us to attack them. We went off of intelligence from misleaders like Chalaby(sp?) and ignored all the intelligence that didn't support going to war. Biggest waist of time/resources/life I have ever seen [right][post="110177"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Then Saddam should have complied with the UN resolutions and given the inspectors free and total access to any sites they wanted to inspect IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY HE SIGNED at the end of the gulf war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 3 2005, 07:47 AM']Iraq wanted nothing to do with a war. They were not a threat and it was our misguided fear that brought us to attack them. [right][post="110177"][/post][/right][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaker Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 Pro-lifers are not pro-life, if they were they would oppose the death penalty too. The innocent vs guilty argument holds no water in that case. Life is life, and if youre "pro-life" then you dont murder under ANY circumstances. Every other excuse is just spin to "justify" getting your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted July 3, 2005 Report Share Posted July 3, 2005 [quote name='kdubdub' date='Jul 3 2005, 07:47 AM'][b]Iraq wanted nothing to do with a war[/b]. They were not a threat and it was our misguided fear that brought us to attack them. We went off of intelligence from misleaders like Chalaby(sp?) and ignored all the intelligence that didn't support going to war. Biggest waist of time/resources/life I have ever seen [right][post="110177"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] If that were true then they would have complied with UN Security Council reslutions. But, they failed to do so...REPEATEDLY...and how were we to know what Saddam really had unless we verified it for ourselves since he was hell-bent on defying not just the USA but the World's will (which is what the UN represents...The World)? Factor in our offensive stance against terrorism in the wake of 9-11 attacks (I know, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 directly), and the knowledge that Saddam at least USED to have WMD's and wasn't shy about using them (even on his own people), and the fact that it was proven that Saddam or his underlings had met with Al-Quaeda members, allowed them to train and pass through Iraq without fear of reprisals, AND that Saddam financially supported terrorism in Israel by paying family members of Palestinian suicide bombers and you get what we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.